Case Digest (G.R. No. 45742)
Facts:
Tiburcio Mamuyac v. Pedro Abena, G.R. No. 45742, April 12, 1939, the Supreme Court En Banc, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.
Gregoria Pimentel was the registered owner of two parcels of land which she sold and conveyed to Pedro Abena on June 1, 1926; the deed in favor of Abena (Exhibit 1) was inscribed in the registry of property on January 31, 1927, and from April 1927 the parcels were declared for taxation in Abena’s name. On January 27, 1927, Pimentel again purportedly sold and conveyed the same parcels to Tiburcio Mamuyac; Mamuyac’s document of sale was not recorded in the registry and the parcels were not declared for taxation in his name.
Mamuyac instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of La Union to recover the two parcels. After trial the trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, Pedro Abena. Mamuyac appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision (with one member dissenting), concluding that, under applicable law and precedent, the trial court committed no error in favoring Abena.
Petitioner Mamuyac then brought the case to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. Before this Court he asserted, among other grounds, that he had superior right by virtue of alleged possession under a private contract of mortgage dated January 4 (referred to in the decision alternatively as 1935 and 1925) (Exhibit B), and he invoked Article 1473 of the Civil Code to support his claim. The Supreme Court considered the procedura...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court on certiorari review and revise the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals?
- Can the alleged private contract of mortgage (Exhibit B) executed in favor of petitioner constitute a legally binding mortgage that gives him a superior right over the parcels?
- Does Article 1473 of the Civil Code apply to resolve the dispute between a purchaser with a recorded deed and a claimant relying on an unrecorded sale or a private mortgage, and in any event does...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)